Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 231 posts

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#41

Post by magnuspaaske »

The article makes a lot of bold claims of the energy transition happening faster than otherwise and then mostly ignore all the context that kind of goes against the point. The most egregious example of this is saying coal has been in a secular decline for 8 years but somehow a 1.2% increase in coal use last year lead to a record – for most people that would suggest that coal use has plateaued and is not in fact decreasing as the article would otherwise want you to believe.

Elsewhere it mentions 90% of new generating capacity will be renewable over the next years, but that also kind of ignores that there'll still be 10% not renewable capacity coming online and, oh yeah, India might also have new coal plants coming online in the years ahead.

This is pretty important when considering that coal is still the most common source of electricity but also that electricity is only a part of our energy needs – switching to electrified transportation, industry and heating systems will all create more demand for electricity. Seeing as we want to phase out coal we would need renewable energy to account for more than 100% of net new production and we haven't even reached that.

Even with all the speedup in the green transition happening over the past few years it still doesn't happen at close to the speed needed – in fact we're not even close to seeing the end of coal regardless of everything going on.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#42

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pydry wrote: post #39
colonCapitalDee wrote: post #31

For the many people who are criticizing the article for being pro-war: the article is simply claiming that the energy war between Russia and the West is increasing global prices for fossil fuels and is spurring concerns over energy security. Increased prices for fossil fuels makes green energy more cost competitive and concerns over energy security drive nations to find alternative energy sources. Increases in the co…

>At no point does the article claim "war is good because it's spurring green energy spending" Instead it pretends it has significant upsides that are based upon a spurious theory. Realistically renewables require an intense amount of capital that this war has suddenly made a lot more expensive. This will hamper green energy investment - older plants will be kept running for longer, new green energy plants won't get b…

> spurious evidence

Why are IEA forecasts spurious?

> less crass form of war cheerleading

Would the article be better if it just commented on the acceleration of investment in renewables, leaving unsaid the cause of said acceleration because some readers find it distasteful?

This is one of the more surprisingly anti-intellectual threads I’ve seen on HN.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#43

Post by Zigurd »

fragmede wrote: post #36

In the dead of winter - which means fewer daylight hours, cloud cover, and snow cover, solar's going to be pretty inefficient, and so with a huge array you'd only get a little bit of energy out. And critically you also need batteries to time shift the energy to heat during the colder night time hours. But it's a system that President Putin, or anyone else can't withhold. Relationships change. LNG from America ain't i…

Natural gas production in the US has started declining. Even with the demand for LNG in Europe.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#44

Post by luckylion »

runarberg wrote: post #12

I don’t know if this is addressed by this article (I cant read it because paywall) but I’m gonna make a leap of assumption—because this is the economist and are likely to be guilty. I’m seeing more and more of a new kind type of climate denialism pop up lately, which I like to call climate optimism . A climate optimist is aware that the climate crisis is real, is caused by humans, and is an existential threat to huma…

I'm not sure what your position is. Technology won't progress? Investing money into research and scaling up production doesn't lower the marginal cost? Monetary incentives aren't better at getting things done? We can't "avert the crisis" without going back to adopting pre-industrial lifestyles/communism/veganism or wear sheep wool clothes?

What's the "appropriate" response that you'd feel okay with?

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#45

Post by pasquinelli »

some_random wrote: post #21
trasz3 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The Russian Invasion of Ukraine has been such an amazing tool for distinguishing actual anti-war people from anti-west ghouls. It's a completely indefensible war of aggression by an imperialistic power against it's former subject but since the imperialistic power is Russia suddenly all these "anti-war" activists think it's fine.

is dumping weapons into ukraine going to stop the war? is expanding the war going to stop the war?

what do you propose doing about russia invading ukraine, besides war?

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#47

Post by Zigurd »

magnuspaaske wrote: post #41

The article makes a lot of bold claims of the energy transition happening faster than otherwise and then mostly ignore all the context that kind of goes against the point. The most egregious example of this is saying coal has been in a secular decline for 8 years but somehow a 1.2% increase in coal use last year lead to a record – for most people that would suggest that coal use has plateaued and is not in fact decre…

The fact that US natural gas production is in decline even as fracking and LNG demand are in play, one would have to admit, is remarkable.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#49

Post by pydry »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #42
pydry wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At no point does the article claim "war is good because it's spurring green energy spending" Instead it pretends it has significant upsides that are based upon a spurious theory. Realistically renewables require an intense amount of capital that this war has suddenly made a lot more expensive. This will hamper green energy investment - older plants will be kept running for longer, new green energy plants won't get b…

> spurious evidence Why are IEA forecasts spurious? > less crass form of war cheerleading Would the article be better if it just commented on the acceleration of investment in renewables, leaving unsaid the cause of said acceleration because some readers find it distasteful? This is one of the more surprisingly anti-intellectual threads I’ve seen on HN.

>Why are IEA forecasts spurious?

What do they have to do with the war? Renewable energy was projected to grow anyway in spite of the war because of the declining costs of renewables.

However, since they are capital intense and war made capital expensive... that'll be a drag on investment, won't it?

>Would the article be better if it just commented on the acceleration of investment in renewables, leaving unsaid the cause of said acceleration

It would be better if they were honest about the cause.

>This is one of the more surprisingly anti-intellectual threads I’ve seen on HN.

If you say so.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#50

Post by MomoXenosaga »

pasquinelli wrote: post #45
some_random wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Russian Invasion of Ukraine has been such an amazing tool for distinguishing actual anti-war people from anti-west ghouls. It's a completely indefensible war of aggression by an imperialistic power against it's former subject but since the imperialistic power is Russia suddenly all these "anti-war" activists think it's fine.

is dumping weapons into ukraine going to stop the war? is expanding the war going to stop the war? what do you propose doing about russia invading ukraine, besides war?

I am confident enough that the West is still able to decimate a middling power like Russia. They have the GDP of Italy for fuck sake they're not the USSR.
Post reply on HN